Oops! At 5:08 it should be "Scientist" and "Atheist" for the anagrams. I guess refuting these memes destroyed my brain cells needed for proper spelling!
Good that I didn't write "do you know what anagrams are" in the comments 🤦 Does anyone else here confess to post too many comments on RUclips wasting precious time?
That first meme was enough to hurt my brain on a level I never knew was possible. These “intellectually superior” atheists couldn’t figure out that these names had been translated? Seriously?!
Jesus *is* Hispanic, and more besides. I cannot definitively tell you why or when, but it is entirely in His character to appear as any ethnicity to reach someone and be their Lord, Jesus can appear to you in the form you will recognise, if it suits His plans to appear before you at all. He will speak your language and be your Saviour. The depictions of Jesus mostly revolve around how he looks as a Byzantine Emperor, or the 'long haired blonde', the mortal Jesus likely looked different, and the risen Jesus also has varied appearance from those who have seen him. John gives a good description with Jesus having skin the colour of brass. He looks like God, and God looks how He pleases There is a lovely story about the film titled Jesus, an evangelical work not too dissimilar in style to Jesus of Nazareth. The Jesus movie was made specifically as an evangelical tool. It depicted a white robed long blonde haired traditional Jesus, and followed the Gospel account as well as it could. One oversight per se was the satchel on a sash Jesus carried with him on set, it looked right and made Jesus look more travelled so the actor was filmed with this on. When the film was released as a video, which can be freely copied for missionary purposes it ended up in Africa. One of the reasons for the traditional long haired blonde Jesus wearing white robes is so that it didn't make any assumptions that were not long established. An image to which the sash-satchel was added. Now there was a particular region in Africa where it was customary to wear a sash-satchel just as was worn by Jesus in the film. Now while Jesus was depicted as white, and frankly that offends Africans far less than many people assume, Jesus wearing a tribal sash-satchel was a big deal. People from that culture recognised the Jesus portrayed as 'their' Jesus He wore their traditional garment. The video became immensely popular as a result and many many people were saved.
@@BigSillyOrangeCat And when people say Jesus is that is also not talking about the first incarnation. Jesus is the Son of Man, all humanity, however he was also specifically a Jew. We do not know what Jesus looked like, only that he was very average in appearance. He did not win attention on personal looks, which is a spiritual relevance, he also wasn't distinctive enough that he could be isolated and arrested easily. Judas had to point him out. The first incarnation of Jesus was so non descript that his visual identity was not relevant. His risen identity is however very relevant, He will be God to everyone and can be very distinctly Hispanic, or anything else, when He chooses to be.
@@BigSillyOrangeCat First, always capitalise the Name of God please. You should capitalise personal names anyway, it's a sign of disrespect not to. Second the risen Jesus doesn't have an ethnicity, because He has a resurrected body, which is a spiritual body not one made of base flesh. We will also have a spiritual body, genetics will have nothing to do with it. Our bodies will be glorified and might look unlike how we currently look, but will be recognisable as us. Jesus however is a very specific case. EVERYONE will instantly recognise Him, it will be impossible not to. This is a spiritual dynamic and not based on any racial characteristics, at that point Jesus actual appearance is completely irrelevant, but can be quantified nonetheless: He will look like God.
@Idaho-Cowboy And an atheist physicist praising him on Dec. 25 wrote: "Today is a special day", since Newton was born that day. A few commenters were disappointed, though.
The entire intellectual superiority complex of atheism is literally nothing but a facade. As they admit, atheism has no doctrine or beliefs, so they have nothing really to stand on and no complete worldview through which to view the world.
@@lePirateMan he picked ones to be entertaining. It's not possible, even in theory, for anything a Christian to do to damage the reputation of atheists anymore than the damage inflicted by the atheists themselves. Vice robs us of our gifts after all.
Another thing Trent could have mentioned about the last meme with the library was that the Catholic Church has an extensive literary history, with thousands of books written by saints, not to mention the books written by those who haven't been declared saints but are still theologically sound. I mean one of the most popular works of literature is the Divine Comedy, which not only influenced the Italian language, but is a very Catholic work from beginning to end and an interesting story even at a surface level. Not to mention, while less theology than entertainment, we also have Lord of the Rings, a story many atheists enjoy.
💯 💯 💯! Atheist love to say I wonder where Tolkien got these ideas from when he said time after time he based them on Catholicism as a Children’s story for his children 😵💫🫠
@fabianwittmann8121 That’s like… the exact opposite of what happens when fiction is inspired. Besides, notice he said Tolkien was inspired by Catholicism, which is essentially the culture of the entire civilized world for like 1500 years I don’t think it’s a stretch to say he was inspired by human history lol
Reading both atheist and theist pieces of literature is partially what made me revert back to Catholicism. There’s no question that theist literature is more true, good and beautiful.
Out of all the apologetic videos I watch, “Christian reacts to meme” are always kinda my favorite. It’s ridiculous… maybe embarrassing that I enjoy them so much.
The Hebrew name one made me cringe so hard. It reminded me of the phrase “it’s better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
It shows their lack of education, especially in History, Geography and culture. It is also shocking given that most atheists claim that they are more educated than the religious.
8:49 It was the Catholic Church that invented the concept of the university in the Middle Ages and subsidized the study of astronomy in order to better understand the calendar and worship God. For an example, Catholic Cathedrals were built with a knowledge of where the sun would be throughout the year as it shined through stained glass windows. According to historian J.L. Heilbron, the Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably all, institutions. Thank you, Trent. Hope you and your family have a light-filled peaceful good day! I'm praying for you. Please pray for me. God bless!
> According to historian J.L. Heilbron, the Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, The Roman Catholic Church also spent centuries trying to convert, ostracize or outright kill any opposition.
Indeed, this is something that "goes without saying" among the vast majority of scholars of Late Antiquity and Middle Ages Historical periods. One has just to check out. But hey...
The Catholic Church being this big bad institution that suppressed science is a later invention of the Reformation that made Christianity look worse as a whole. Just one of the many bad fruits of the reformation.
So if god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, why do bad things happens? I guess at this point we're going to hear some crap about "free will" or "Mysterious Ways"
@I_R2pe_Little_Kids "fallen world" is just Christian bollocks to try to explain the paradox of a good, loving and all-powerful god plus a world filled with misery, suffering and death.
Do you believe that God is perfect? Do you believe God doesn’t make mistakes? Do you believe God is all knowing? Do you believe God has a plan? Do you believe God is the creator of everything? Well most likely you do believe these things if you are a Christian. It’s what is taught in Sunday school for children. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What do the heavens consist of? Angels. What was Lucifer? He was created as an angel. Now if god knows all sees all… how was he not aware that when he created Lucifer he would become the devil and betray him and the world for eternity? Lol God did nothing to stop it.. he let it happen. The Bible shows us just how powerful he can be and he is literally in the process of creating everything. So for God, once it’s created it can’t be taken away? Because the God you believe in also flooded the world because he couldn’t believe what it had become.. but he knew when he created the earth, he was going to have to do that?? Why? He’s perfect right? Also the Bible is not original, research it. It has several stories and teachings that are copied from other religions that came before it.. And what evidence can you provide that what you say is true? Lol please bring forth the knowledge we are all missing that shows us how what you say is true? Also what would you have to say about the contradictions in the Bible? They do exist I’ll provide some examples. Exodus 20:8 and Romans 14:5 Genesis 32:30 and John 1:18 Mathew 19:26 and Judges 1:19 Deuteronomy 27:22 and Leviticus 20:17 and Genesis 20:11-12 and Genesis 17:15-16 (these are about incest) Ezekiel 18:20 and Exodus 20:5 James 1:13 and Genesis 22:1 Job 7:9 and John 5:28-29 Romans 5:12 and John 8:51 John 3:13 and 2 Kings 2:11 Mathew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 Malachi 3:6 and Exodus 32:14 Job 1:8-12 and James 1:13 John 10:30, Numbers 30:1-2, and Mathew 5:33-37 Exodus 24:9-11 and Exodus 33:20 So if you are so intelligent to come back and refute everything I just said then good for you. But most likely you can’t and just simply don’t want to because it’s challenging your belief. So if you think this is all pretend let’s see you defend it.
I am agnostic, I believe that there is no proof for God's existence but either there are no proof for him not existing. I'm an ex-atheist who realised that if I would always say that there is no god and mock religion I will never get to learn anything, now I'm open for all kinds of theories. EDIT: now 2 months later I'm a Christian :)
Ouch… this comment hit me right in that place where you think about your past and cringe a little. I was one of those atheists… for a long time. Then I accepted Christ, read CS Luis, Chesterton, St. Augustine and a few more. Realized Christians weren’t idiots, and it was quite the contrary. Even now, while writing this, my face is scrunched up cringing at my past self… I guess it could have been worse. I could have owned a fedora.
This seems true, and it's really sad, because... Well, sin damages our gifts. Both natural and super natural. And atheists tend to put that on full display
Look how you change the subject and don’t actually comment on something the video has to offer. Your argument here is not valid. And I wonder why you would not like to comment on anything that the video actually said. Care to explain?
@@extract8058 He actually wasn't Jewish. Yeah, some Jews may have helped the Red Russians, but I bet ya Stalin saw them as a threat and threw them into the gulag
It is yourself why you did to yourself and you must be ashame of your sins you made. God didn't want you to suffer from Sin. But to suffer more challenges so you will become strong..
I thought I was going crazy when he said "science" and "atheism" were anagrams, when he had meant to say "scientist" and "atheism". I realize now Trent is trolling us! Nice Easter Egg Trent!
Great job. My problem with reacting to these is there's too much self contradictory stupid to know where to start. You must be blessed with more patience than I.
As a Protestant, sometimes I get jealous that Catholics and Orthodox get to poke fun at some of our ridiculousness. But at least there are atheists that we can all poke fun at! 😂😂😂
Yes, you all believe in a mythical man in the sky based on a book written by committee after being passed around orally for hundreds of years by people that didn't know that the world was flat, where the sun went at night, and that there literally was anything in their world further out than a couple hundred miles. Yes, go ahead and circle jerk each other all you want, you're still all sad little fools.
6:35 - 6:45 The funniest thing about this argument is that there are over 1.6 million different animal species on Earth, but these people can only name between 500 and 1,600 species practising same-sex acts, that's like less than 0.1% of all animal species living today. How awkward, isn't it?
You are misrepresenting the statistics. 5% of mammalian species show same sex behavior. This is a very underreported statistic because it isn't highly investigated. You may be interested to know that in 22 mammalian species examined, it has a prevalence of 80%. You may also like to know that same sex behavior correlates strongly with sociality in animals. We are social animals. Homosexuality is abundant in nature, especially between social species and especially mammals, of which we are both.
@@LordMathious You claim that I'm misrepresenting the statistics while writing unconfirmed statistic yourself, that's funny. I only name confirmed facts, there are 1.6 million of animal species, and only 500 to 1600 of them actually practice same-sex acts. > You may be interested to know that in 22 mammalian species examined, it has a prevalence of 80%. Source: bro, trust me (not found in any available online source) And you managed to not only falsely attribute homosexual behavior to more animal species than it actually happens to be, but you also consider humans to be equal to "social animals". You are clearly sick with thoughts of anti-scientific heresy.
@LordMathious your misrepresenting the importance of statistics. These correlations are nearly meaningless as I doubt any of them have many human constructs, systems of morality akin to ours, or other unique aspects of human society and cognitive development. Correlation is just that, and as Google data analysists are taught, "data doesn't lead, it informs". This doesn't give a conclusion, it simply shows the respective prevalence of a behavior, and you'll notice many behaviors if you continue studying that we find repulsive
I think these videos are a great idea and I would love to see more! Sure, it's low hanging fruit but so many are eating it. I've seen a few of these being circled back in my college days. It would have been nice to have some quick whitted rebuttals.
And showed how much of the "low hanging fruit" he still managed to miss. It was not to show that "babies believe what I do" it was to show that if you weren't brainwashed or "groomed" into the cult you were then you wouldn't either. Same vibe as showing those babies and labeling them "not racist".... So let me ask.... which one are you are racist or "baby-minded".....
Such an important video to make. We and our children face this type of bite size information everyday. We don't think of the quick answers you have presented. So Thank you!
I just discovered you. I love your systematic explanations! I haven't found many other people who are able to do that so well. It is a virtue for sure.
Whenever someone brings up what’s “natural” to justify sin I just instantly pull out the fallen nature card. Yeah it may be natural but our nature doesn’t equal good
Here is a question.... Adam and Eve ate from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" according to the bible to get to that "fallen nature" of which card you just instantly play..... How did they know it was wrong to do it without having that knowledge of what good and evil was? Follow up, isn't it kind of a "dick move" to punish someone for doing something evil when they literally do not know what good and evil is? Especially when you look at how severe the punishment was, according to the bible.
@@thehungarywaffleinc.7775 So? They did not know if it was good or evil to listen to or ignore god..... according to the bible. I am not making this up it is right there in Genesis.
@@skillcoiler Christian tradition is that they weren’t like literal babies in intelligence. They would’ve been more enlightened than us. I should add that refusing God wasn’t a question of right and wrong. It was a question of wether or not they wanted to be in union with God
@@thehungarywaffleinc.7775 Read the bible.... they didn't have a knowledge of good or evil until they ate from the tree... Meaning they would have no way of knowing if "being in union with god" as you say was a good or evil thing to be... So once again very messed up deity you have there according to YOUR BOOK on it... and that is literally the very first story about it....
Really? I have found the opposite to be true. And it’s actually a scientific fact that atheist are relatively more intellectual than a theist. Many studies have been preformed to come to this conclusion. So sounds like you need to get out more and gain more perspective.
@@LetThereBeLight-26 also you can look up the worlds top preforming scientist and intellectuals and you can see the difference between atheist and believers.. proof is all over the place. You can still ignore what any website tells you. I mean being a believer you ignore a lot that exist in this world so I don’t expect you to even take this and claim it as truth. It bashes believers so you’ll be offended and won’t accept it lol. Which is fine but doesn’t change the fact that exist.
Imagine claiming to be smarter cos you lack belief and then dreaming these up💔💔💔 Nice video Trent. Edit: The hypocrisy of those guys is phenomenal especially with the 6th 5:29 They don't see anything wrong in making kindergartners watch grown men in wigs dresses and making twerk in front of kids who should be learning maths, but read them your bible and then it's an issue 🤦💔
Or, more simply put, why would it be "indoctrination" or "brainwashing" when a Catholic father explains and teaches his faith to his child but not when an atheist father does the same?
6:34 - I countered someone making this exact same argument with similar logic some time ago. He replied, "Well, not EVERYTHING animals do is something we should do". I responded, "So what you're saying is your argument from animal behavior only applies to things you agree with?" He couldn't respond.
bad reply. you don't understand why people use animals. people use animals to justify homosexuality because it shows that homosexuality occurs in nature and is therefore not unnatural. but the point of justifying it in the first place is because homosexuality is not an action or something directly harmful to anyone. this same reasoning can not be applied to immoral actions because humans and animals are not equal in intelligence, and therefore makes a human's drive to do these actions completely different from the instinct of animals who do that, to commit those actions. when those actions are committed, they require the direct intentional harm to another person.
Also, about homophobia, I'm thinking of two recent videos you made: they can't have it both ways... They can't say, 'homosexuality isn't in the Bible' because it's 'actually' talking about ritual prostitution, pederasty, etc. etc. -- but then say, 'the Bible is full of homophobia.'
I’m an atheist and I’ve watched lots of Trent’s debates. Enjoy his content - we don’t often agree but here I’ve got to - these memes are indeed embarrassingly bad!
Thank you for this video! I'm glad this was recommended to me! :D I have met many religion hating atheists over the years who think Christianity is stupid and that it does no good. People like you are debunking the atheist's unsound and untrue thoughts of Christianity!
Incest is also extremely popular in the animal kingdom. In the documentary "The Secret Life of Black Wolf", a wolf named Twenty-One tries to mate with his daughters multiple times (though is hilarious rebuked). I'm sure there have been far more documented cases of incestuous interest among animals than homosexuality. Though in defense of the post on homosexuality, I could say that it shows how the bad the "it's unnatural" argument is and how it needs to be reframed.
@@TheCounselofTrent I just had a half dozen snarky and mean things come to mind at once, and I can't pick between them any more than I could choose a favourite child (I constantly tell my mother I am her favourite child, just so she knows), so I will just say I appreciate the humility.
I don't believe in God but I've been against the "atheism is just a lack of belief" line even before it was cool. I feel like it's used mostly as a way to deflect any possible criticism of your worldview, which is silly and ultimately pointless. It's like playing Street Fighter using a character that cannot be hit.
Not really, its just the most accurate description of that position. This weird hard atheist definition is just an attempt to define people away form their position and shift the burden of proof. I do not believe in god because i hold the view that we should not accept or believe claims without sufficient evidence. All gods people have proposed to me are among those claims. The reason i would not call myself an agnostic is because this term already has many other meanings and it would only be confusing and a poor word to describe my position. Because i do not sit on the fence, the possibility that god might exist does not play any role in any decision making proces or moral consideration. I make all my dicisions on the basis that there are no gods, just like you do with any other mythical creatures. Nor do i think evidence for both sides is about equal and therefor stay undecided for me the evidence is about 100 - 1 against god. Both these things are also called agnostic and do not describe my views. Besides what term would you give to my position?
@@aidanya1336 It sounds like you believe there is no god. You literally said "the evidence is about 100-1 against god." That's not an "I don't know." That's a "there is probably no god."
@@9502937 True, but i come to that position by rejecting the positive claim that there is a god. I do not affirm its opposite since i do not claim that there are no gods. Think if it more like saying: You are wrong, rather than i am right. So that puts me in the lack of believe in god group. That Trent calls agnostic.
@@aidanya1336 Trent offers three, and only three possible positions on the existence of god: (1) there is, or probably is, a god - Theist; (2) there is not, or probably is not, any god - Atheist; or (3) I don't know - Agnostic. You seem to be clearly in category 2, not 3. It doesn't particularly matter that the impetus of your belief is others' claims in favor of position 1. One could easily arrive at position 1 - Theism - with the impetus being a rejection of Atheism. Even if I arrive at belief in God by way of rejecting Atheists' belief that there is no God, I still now hold a belief that there is a God and am, therefore, a Theist. You claim not that you don't know whether there is a god, but that you believe there is not any god. Therefore, you are an Atheist with a positive belief in the absence, or probable absence, of any god.
the guy whi came up with the big bang theory, or at least an earlier version of it that they then developed, was a catholic priest. the father of genetics was a benedictine monk.
Thank you for this video! I'm glad this was recommended to me! :D I have met many religion hating atheists over the years who think Christianity is stupid and that it does no good. People like you are debunking the atheist's unsound and untrue thoughts about Christianity! :D
It's not a bad argument, though. Christians always say that everything/the universe must have a creator, but when they are asked about that in relation to God, they pull the "no, that's different" card.
@@demoforcl It’s not a Christianity issue, but a fundamental question that is utterly unintelligible to the subject. That is why it’s objectively a bad question… Christians (and not only Christians) merely lack the perceptual impairment it takes to posit the question.
@@garymanz3403 True, it’s not just Christians. It’s a Christian channel/video, so I wrote that, but you’re right. However, it’s not unintelligible. You just don’t like that you can’t answer it. The question goes both ways, but since you can’t answer it, you just have to claim it’s stupid. It’s a cop out.
@@demoforcl I’d agree it’s a cop out if the question was relevant to the subject. However, it’s an objectively incoherent question in relation to Gods existence. And I’ll add, the only possible God! I will grant you, it IS a very important question, in that, it exposes atheists conceptualization. Which is why their demand for “evidence” is often in tandem. Because in order to ask it at all, you have to naturalize the subject, making God “not God,” but just one more competitor within nature. Which of course only delays, perhaps infinitely (which is logically absurd), the fundamental question begged of why anything exists at all.
That's like saying: "If the baker baked the cake, who baked the baker?" The definition of God is being infinite and uncaused, so he needs no creator. If something's created, it's per definition not God, and if something's God, it's per definition not created.
Spain wasn't established even in 1479. The two kingdoms of Castile and Aragon were united in one Trastamara king (and queen), but they remained technically independent kingdoms in personal union with each other until the Bourbons came along, much much later. The entire Habsburg period fits between those two.
Disagree about homophobia…it definitely exists. The definition is: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people. Now, maybe Trent doesn’t like that definition as he loves to control definitions. I wonder what he would say about theophobia? Or religiophobia? Also, when Trent asserts that homosexual people are not “natural” he is making an authoritative claim based on his interpretation of biblical theology. Appeals to nature are unconvincing to people who do not believe that nature is teleological or who find the notion of “essence” very problematic.
The first one is an example of the Tiffany problem where you can’t really use the name Tiffany in medieval fantasy because no one will believe that Tiffany was a medieval name. There’s also kinda a reverse of this which I call the Luke problem. No one will believe that you didn’t name you kid after Luke skywalker or princess Zelda instead of just using traditional names.
Hi Trent I really like your videos and just recently for Christmas I bought your book Counterfeit Christs it’s a great read and I really enjoy your writing style
God cannot interfere He lets good things happen and bad things happened it's life he's not your jinni If your ancestors were monkeys why are they still monkeys around Prideful atheist🐵🦍🦍🦍🦍🐵🐵🐵🐵🐵🦍🦍🙉🙉🙉🐒🦧🦧🦧🦧🤓🏳️🌈🤡
4:32 there's a lot of funny things about the whole "lack of belief" definition. One of them is that virtually no professional philosopher (or really any academic context) holds the "lack of belief" definition, nor has that ever been the definition commonly used throughout history. In fact, the "lack of belief" definition was coined by Anthony Flew in the 1970s, a philosopher who coined it that way in order to make atheism "easier to sell." Flew eventually ended up believing in God near the end of his life. The "lack of belief" says nothing about the world, and only something about a mental state. If you watch how lacktheists dialogue, you see a constant motte and bailey between "I merely lack belief" and their positivistic claims about God, theism and religion, which is why I think they're full of it. What I like to tell them is: if you lack a belief, get out of the conversation. I know next to nothing about air conditioners, how they work, what units or brands are best for what purpose, the technical aspects of them, etc;. I also don't go to trade shows, tirelessly dialoguing with manufacturers about why their brand is unique or special, then ending the conversation with "I just lack a belief about your claims." Utter nonsense. Furthermore, I don't think lacktheists are aware that literally any position can be framed as a "lack of belief", and it is clearly rhetorical technique to shift the burden of proof onto literally anybody else. What if I defined Christianity as "a lack of belief in any belief system that believes God is not a Trinity and Christ did not rise from the dead"? What if I defined theism as "a lack of belief in the statement 'there is no God'"? What if I defined Christian as "someone who lacks a belief in anything that isn't Christianity"? "Lack of belief" is a rhetorical technique used by cowardly interlocutors who wouldn't dare be caught dead having the burden of proof. I dismiss anyone who merely claims they "lack a belief in God" as an unserious person. Also, "agnostic atheist" is a nonsense term as it fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between belief and knowledge (i.e. "justified true belief").
Yes, except that it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in the existence of any deity while still believing in the possibility of the existence of a deity. It's pretty much the position anyone with an open mind should have to anything unproven.
@@newglof9558 agnosticism is a position, but not any position is worthy of taking part in debate. Those who tout agnosticism and "lack of belief" are not worthy of participation in a debate regarding the existence of deities.
@@newglof9558 "lack of belief" usually doesn't even accurately describe their mental state even. It's just a cop out and a front for their actual position that they wish to conceal in order to avoid accepting their burden of proof.
something i have realized now that trent made me (yes, forced me) to become catholic: Most of the views these atheists have on christianity are actually criticisms on Protestantism. For instance the "only one book" argument, because of how strong protestantism is in USA. Some of them are actually SOMEWHAT "valid" in their foundation, but thats not christianity, or religion, its criticizing a specific view on religion
And the original manuscripts were magically aged to look like 2000 years old, even with the most accurate modern measurements, and then hidden somewhere in the Middle East, of course without leaving any trace.
The people who insist that Atheism is just a "lack of belief" should really read Dr Filipe Leon's "200 (or so) Reasons for Atheism", and then decide if they are truly still simply not convinced, or are they now convinced one way or the other. Then call yourself a Theist, Agnostic, or Atheist, accordingly. But don't try to have your cake and eat it too -_-
Yeah I read most of them but "probabilistic argument" was the funniest. Also saying matter is metaphysical necessatiy doesnt prove anything. And also saying it is more plausable then theistic view without showing why and alternatives doesnt show anything. Most of them was bad argument or not an argument.
@@uguroz3745 And so I take it that you admit to being a Theist, meaning "one who affirms that there is a God", and not just a Theist*, meaning, "one who lacks belief in the belief that there are no gods"? Like, imagine that all the Theists were like "All theism is is a lack of disbelief in a God!" - that would be very frustrating haha!
Why anyone call themselves a "theist"? A neopagan, a deist, a Christian and a Hindu have so little in common, we don't even really team up when talking to atheists. The only reason atheists have any ability to team up, is because the label is actually a symbol for one of several very distinct cultural movements, depending on the time and place in question. There is no such common cause among the religious.
Oops! At 5:08 it should be "Scientist" and "Atheist" for the anagrams. I guess refuting these memes destroyed my brain cells needed for proper spelling!
Glad you put this correction here; I was so confused.
I disagree with your statement that Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn't believe in God. It's not that he doesn't believe in God, Neil just thinks he is Him
😆 I went on a deep internet search to find out what I was missing with those!
I was looking at that and wondering things like “is mish a naughty word that exists?”
Good that I didn't write "do you know what anagrams are" in the comments 🤦
Does anyone else here confess to post too many comments on RUclips wasting precious time?
That first meme was enough to hurt my brain on a level I never knew was possible. These “intellectually superior” atheists couldn’t figure out that these names had been translated? Seriously?!
Amen!
I’m agnostic, but even I thought that was weird😂
You’re seeing monolingual betas in their natural habitat
They the type of people to ask what the Spanish word for 'uno' is when playing with their Hispanic friends
names don't translate.
Ok. As a Hispanic, reading "Jesus is Hispanic" just hurt my soul.
Jesus *is* Hispanic, and more besides. I cannot definitively tell you why or when, but it is entirely in His character to appear as any ethnicity to reach someone and be their Lord, Jesus can appear to you in the form you will recognise, if it suits His plans to appear before you at all. He will speak your language and be your Saviour.
The depictions of Jesus mostly revolve around how he looks as a Byzantine Emperor, or the 'long haired blonde', the mortal Jesus likely looked different, and the risen Jesus also has varied appearance from those who have seen him. John gives a good description with Jesus having skin the colour of brass. He looks like God, and God looks how He pleases
There is a lovely story about the film titled Jesus, an evangelical work not too dissimilar in style to Jesus of Nazareth. The Jesus movie was made specifically as an evangelical tool. It depicted a white robed long blonde haired traditional Jesus, and followed the Gospel account as well as it could. One oversight per se was the satchel on a sash Jesus carried with him on set, it looked right and made Jesus look more travelled so the actor was filmed with this on.
When the film was released as a video, which can be freely copied for missionary purposes it ended up in Africa. One of the reasons for the traditional long haired blonde Jesus wearing white robes is so that it didn't make any assumptions that were not long established. An image to which the sash-satchel was added. Now there was a particular region in Africa where it was customary to wear a sash-satchel just as was worn by Jesus in the film. Now while Jesus was depicted as white, and frankly that offends Africans far less than many people assume, Jesus wearing a tribal sash-satchel was a big deal. People from that culture recognised the Jesus portrayed as 'their' Jesus He wore their traditional garment. The video became immensely popular as a result and many many people were saved.
@@nerdytom6881we’re talking about the physical jesus back in the first century
@@BigSillyOrangeCat And when people say Jesus is that is also not talking about the first incarnation.
Jesus is the Son of Man, all humanity, however he was also specifically a Jew.
We do not know what Jesus looked like, only that he was very average in appearance. He did not win attention on personal looks, which is a spiritual relevance, he also wasn't distinctive enough that he could be isolated and arrested easily. Judas had to point him out.
The first incarnation of Jesus was so non descript that his visual identity was not relevant.
His risen identity is however very relevant, He will be God to everyone and can be very distinctly Hispanic, or anything else, when He chooses to be.
@@nerdytom6881 we don’t know what race jesus will be when He comes for the second time. you can make theories, but you can’t say for certain
@@BigSillyOrangeCat First, always capitalise the Name of God please. You should capitalise personal names anyway, it's a sign of disrespect not to.
Second the risen Jesus doesn't have an ethnicity, because He has a resurrected body, which is a spiritual body not one made of base flesh. We will also have a spiritual body, genetics will have nothing to do with it. Our bodies will be glorified and might look unlike how we currently look, but will be recognisable as us.
Jesus however is a very specific case. EVERYONE will instantly recognise Him, it will be impossible not to. This is a spiritual dynamic and not based on any racial characteristics, at that point Jesus actual appearance is completely irrelevant, but can be quantified nonetheless:
He will look like God.
If God real, why did I step on a Lego this morning?
This is divine punishment for not cleaning up your room
The vice of sloth robs one of the gift of clean floors.
And also, if God real, why did I get injured in the first few minutes of my last soccer game before retirement?
Rule 1, go clean up your room..... buddy.
Next Deuterocomical video- Trent showing how stepping on Legos actually proves God’s existence.
Throwing my boy Issac Newton in with a bunch of atheists is just insulting. He wrote more on the Bible than he did Physics.
@Idaho-Cowboy
And an atheist physicist praising him on Dec. 25 wrote: "Today is a special day", since Newton was born that day. A few commenters were disappointed, though.
Didn't he think the Trinity was pagan though?
His views would still be considered heretical by the Catholic Church.
"My boy" oh dear I don't know whether to laugh or cringe
@@tomasrocha6139 there are many non-trinitarian Christians. Newton may have been one of them.
These memes are more embarrassing than I thought they'd be.
Sometimes I'm embarrassed by the things Christians do to try and sound cool.
Than I remember atheists exist
Especially the first ones. I don't know if they were jokes but these memes seemed dumb
The entire intellectual superiority complex of atheism is literally nothing but a facade. As they admit, atheism has no doctrine or beliefs, so they have nothing really to stand on and no complete worldview through which to view the world.
He most likely picked out the worst ones to make atheists seem worse
@@lePirateMan he picked ones to be entertaining.
It's not possible, even in theory, for anything a Christian to do to damage the reputation of atheists anymore than the damage inflicted by the atheists themselves.
Vice robs us of our gifts after all.
Another thing Trent could have mentioned about the last meme with the library was that the Catholic Church has an extensive literary history, with thousands of books written by saints, not to mention the books written by those who haven't been declared saints but are still theologically sound. I mean one of the most popular works of literature is the Divine Comedy, which not only influenced the Italian language, but is a very Catholic work from beginning to end and an interesting story even at a surface level. Not to mention, while less theology than entertainment, we also have Lord of the Rings, a story many atheists enjoy.
💯 💯 💯! Atheist love to say I wonder where Tolkien got these ideas from when he said time after time he based them on Catholicism as a Children’s story for his children 😵💫🫠
@@roseg1333Inspiration for fictional books is often found in fictional books.
@fabianwittmann8121 That’s like… the exact opposite of what happens when fiction is inspired. Besides, notice he said Tolkien was inspired by Catholicism, which is essentially the culture of the entire civilized world for like 1500 years
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say he was inspired by human history lol
The Catholic Church is also solely responsible for the preservation of the learning and literature of the ancient world.
Reading both atheist and theist pieces of literature is partially what made me revert back to Catholicism. There’s no question that theist literature is more true, good and beautiful.
Out of all the apologetic videos I watch, “Christian reacts to meme” are always kinda my favorite.
It’s ridiculous… maybe embarrassing that I enjoy them so much.
The Hebrew name one made me cringe so hard.
It reminded me of the phrase “it’s better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Same like where the frick do you think the names came from
It shows their lack of education, especially in History, Geography and culture. It is also shocking given that most atheists claim that they are more educated than the religious.
8:49 It was the Catholic Church that invented the concept of the university in the Middle Ages and subsidized the study of astronomy in order to better understand the calendar and worship God. For an example, Catholic Cathedrals were built with a knowledge of where the sun would be throughout the year as it shined through stained glass windows.
According to historian J.L. Heilbron, the Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably all, institutions.
Thank you, Trent. Hope you and your family have a light-filled peaceful good day! I'm praying for you. Please pray for me. God bless!
> According to historian J.L. Heilbron, the Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries,
The Roman Catholic Church also spent centuries trying to convert, ostracize or outright kill any opposition.
Indeed, this is something that "goes without saying" among the vast majority of scholars of Late Antiquity and Middle Ages Historical periods. One has just to check out. But hey...
@@maxdepasquale2351 Hope you and yours have a great week, Max!
The Catholic Church being this big bad institution that suppressed science is a later invention of the Reformation that made Christianity look worse as a whole. Just one of the many bad fruits of the reformation.
I love how many atheists think their position is a "neutral" position lacking bias.
Lacking bias means observing the universe as it is. Without the help of books
If you define Atheism as "Absence of Believe in a God" it is and if you define it as the statement "no god(s) exist" it isn't neutral....
r/atheism be "If God exist, why bad thing happen" and pretend they demolished 2000 years of Christian theology
So if god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, why do bad things happens? I guess at this point we're going to hear some crap about "free will" or "Mysterious Ways"
ah yes, 2000 years of musings over some unverified story....sorry no sale
@I_R2pe_Little_Kids "fallen world" is just Christian bollocks to try to explain the paradox of a good, loving and all-powerful god plus a world filled with misery, suffering and death.
Do you believe that God is perfect? Do you believe God doesn’t make mistakes? Do you believe God is all knowing? Do you believe God has a plan? Do you believe God is the creator of everything?
Well most likely you do believe these things if you are a Christian. It’s what is taught in Sunday school for children.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What do the heavens consist of? Angels. What was Lucifer? He was created as an angel. Now if god knows all sees all… how was he not aware that when he created Lucifer he would become the devil and betray him and the world for eternity? Lol God did nothing to stop it.. he let it happen. The Bible shows us just how powerful he can be and he is literally in the process of creating everything. So for God, once it’s created it can’t be taken away? Because the God you believe in also flooded the world because he couldn’t believe what it had become.. but he knew when he created the earth, he was going to have to do that?? Why? He’s perfect right?
Also the Bible is not original, research it. It has several stories and teachings that are copied from other religions that came before it..
And what evidence can you provide that what you say is true? Lol please bring forth the knowledge we are all missing that shows us how what you say is true?
Also what would you have to say about the contradictions in the Bible? They do exist I’ll provide some examples.
Exodus 20:8 and Romans 14:5
Genesis 32:30 and John 1:18
Mathew 19:26 and Judges 1:19
Deuteronomy 27:22 and Leviticus 20:17 and Genesis 20:11-12 and Genesis 17:15-16 (these are about incest)
Ezekiel 18:20 and Exodus 20:5
James 1:13 and Genesis 22:1
Job 7:9 and John 5:28-29
Romans 5:12 and John 8:51
John 3:13 and 2 Kings 2:11
Mathew 27:5 and Acts 1:18
Malachi 3:6 and Exodus 32:14
Job 1:8-12 and James 1:13
John 10:30, Numbers 30:1-2, and Mathew 5:33-37
Exodus 24:9-11 and Exodus 33:20
So if you are so intelligent to come back and refute everything I just said then good for you. But most likely you can’t and just simply don’t want to because it’s challenging your belief.
So if you think this is all pretend let’s see you defend it.
@@richardgregory3684"Don't give me the actual answer because it's bullshit"
Apologetics destroyed; my God!
I am agnostic, I believe that there is no proof for God's existence but either there are no proof for him not existing. I'm an ex-atheist who realised that if I would always say that there is no god and mock religion I will never get to learn anything, now I'm open for all kinds of theories.
EDIT: now 2 months later I'm a Christian :)
That's good
@sharkpoos6962 Some of the best advice I've seen in a while
WoW! God Bless man.
@@johnnotrealname8168 amen🙏✝️❤
Character development
"Jesus is spanish" is such a good tagline for a meme tshirt
"God is Spanish and is on the side of his nation."
- Count Duche of Olivares.
I’ve often found that many atheists I talk to take up the mantle of atheist because it seems to be the intelligent position. Another banger from Trent
Ouch… this comment hit me right in that place where you think about your past and cringe a little.
I was one of those atheists… for a long time.
Then I accepted Christ, read CS Luis, Chesterton, St. Augustine and a few more. Realized Christians weren’t idiots, and it was quite the contrary.
Even now, while writing this, my face is scrunched up cringing at my past self… I guess it could have been worse. I could have owned a fedora.
This seems true, and it's really sad, because...
Well, sin damages our gifts. Both natural and super natural. And atheists tend to put that on full display
Or bc religion went so far off track atheism was necessary.
@@tookie36 what is "religion"?
@@tookie36 "Pregnant men." "Men can be women." "Babies are just clumps of cells in the womb."
Seems like the opposite lol
Atheists ehen they discover that the bible was not written in english originally: 🤯🤯🤯
Or the King James Onlyers when they realize that Elizabethan English wasn't spoken in the 1st Century.
Pretty much every atheist knows that. Tho obviously there are the bad apples who are pretty stupid and don't know that basic stuff.
@@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR. I always forget the Divine Truth has so many interpretations
Christians thinking that any of what the Bible says is true after being destroyed by translations:
The ironic thing is, that’s how most fundamentalists also react.
I lost 243,000 brain cells in the first 30 seconds of this clip
He does his last name no honour😅 "Wise"
Then watch the next 20 seconds to get them all back.
Look how you change the subject and don’t actually comment on something the video has to offer. Your argument here is not valid. And I wonder why you would not like to comment on anything that the video actually said. Care to explain?
Same
@@Anxietysucks126He's making fun of the terrible atheist memes.
"Whoever heard of a Jew called Joseph?"
Joseph Gordon-Levitt: Helloooo!!! I'm right here! 😂😂😂😂😂
And let's not forget about Joseph Stalin.
@@extract8058 He actually wasn't Jewish. Yeah, some Jews may have helped the Red Russians, but I bet ya Stalin saw them as a threat and threw them into the gulag
@@extract8058 Stalin was not a Jew what are you talking about. He was Georgian and rather unsympathetic to the Jews if anything.
Yosef still exists nowadays... it should ring a bell...
6:20 "Noooo Trent is citing stone toss, that means he's evil nooooooo" - atheist response videos to this one lol
To be fair, stone toss has perfect aim
@@marvalice3455 stone toss is hilarious
@@marvalice3455He appears to be racist, so I can't agree to that.
@@sandstorm7768 look. I care about my values. Not the enemy's values. I'm not interested in doing the enemy's dirty work
Those same atheists cope and seethe because they can't help liking his comics as evident by all the DMs he got and posted on twitter.
Internet atheists not understanding transliteration of names is kind of funny considering I own Bibles in a few different languages
"if God real why am i obese and celibate??"
thats your problem not gods🤣
It is yourself why you did to yourself and you must be ashame of your sins you made. God didn't want you to suffer from Sin. But to suffer more challenges so you will become strong..
"Debunks Irascible" got me to laugh much harder than expected :D
One of the best!
As a Baptist I love your channel. Christ be with you, brother.
Usually I’m a podcast listener but I had to watch this episode on RUclips to see the memes. Very entertaining episode!
I thought I was going crazy when he said "science" and "atheism" were anagrams, when he had meant to say "scientist" and "atheism". I realize now Trent is trolling us! Nice Easter Egg Trent!
Great job. My problem with reacting to these is there's too much self contradictory stupid to know where to start. You must be blessed with more patience than I.
Thats why God my Lord on MOST HIGH didnt give me the gift of debate. I get to worked up. Lol debate and explaining skills is definitely a gift.
I really hope this turns into a series!
As a Protestant, sometimes I get jealous that Catholics and Orthodox get to poke fun at some of our ridiculousness. But at least there are atheists that we can all poke fun at! 😂😂😂
Yes, you all believe in a mythical man in the sky based on a book written by committee after being passed around orally for hundreds of years by people that didn't know that the world was flat, where the sun went at night, and that there literally was anything in their world further out than a couple hundred miles. Yes, go ahead and circle jerk each other all you want, you're still all sad little fools.
At least we can poke at Catholics ridiculousness
Amen 🙏🏼😂🥰
Love your comment. For the record, I'm Catholic.
As if there isn't any Catholic ridiculousness to poke fun of? 😅😅😅
6:35 - 6:45
The funniest thing about this argument is that there are over 1.6 million different animal species on Earth, but these people can only name between 500 and 1,600 species practising same-sex acts, that's like less than 0.1% of all animal species living today. How awkward, isn't it?
You are misrepresenting the statistics.
5% of mammalian species show same sex behavior. This is a very underreported statistic because it isn't highly investigated.
You may be interested to know that in 22 mammalian species examined, it has a prevalence of 80%.
You may also like to know that same sex behavior correlates strongly with sociality in animals. We are social animals.
Homosexuality is abundant in nature, especially between social species and especially mammals, of which we are both.
@@LordMathious
You claim that I'm misrepresenting the statistics while writing unconfirmed statistic yourself, that's funny. I only name confirmed facts, there are 1.6 million of animal species, and only 500 to 1600 of them actually practice same-sex acts.
> You may be interested to know that in 22 mammalian species examined, it has a prevalence of 80%.
Source: bro, trust me (not found in any available online source)
And you managed to not only falsely attribute homosexual behavior to more animal species than it actually happens to be, but you also consider humans to be equal to "social animals". You are clearly sick with thoughts of anti-scientific heresy.
@LordMathious your misrepresenting the importance of statistics. These correlations are nearly meaningless as I doubt any of them have many human constructs, systems of morality akin to ours, or other unique aspects of human society and cognitive development. Correlation is just that, and as Google data analysists are taught, "data doesn't lead, it informs". This doesn't give a conclusion, it simply shows the respective prevalence of a behavior, and you'll notice many behaviors if you continue studying that we find repulsive
@angelocarantino4803 The point remains that we are social mammals. A lot of social mammals, when investigated, show same sex behaviors.
@@LordMathious a lot of ice cream sales when investigated correlate to murder rates lol
I think these videos are a great idea and I would love to see more! Sure, it's low hanging fruit but so many are eating it. I've seen a few of these being circled back in my college days. It would have been nice to have some quick whitted rebuttals.
Trent underhandedly and respectfully calling atheists baby-minded at 3:22 is the best thing I've heard all week. 🤣😂🤣😂
And showed how much of the "low hanging fruit" he still managed to miss. It was not to show that "babies believe what I do" it was to show that if you weren't brainwashed or "groomed" into the cult you were then you wouldn't either. Same vibe as showing those babies and labeling them "not racist".... So let me ask.... which one are you are racist or "baby-minded".....
And those babies aren't even technically atheist, they're merely agnostic.
Considering Christians claim they need to be child-like minded to have faith. I say it's the pot calling the kettle black situation.
It’s just the logical conclusion of lacktheist dogma
@@Hola-ro6yv you don't need a god. And thst is hold coming from Christians who claim want to be childmonded to be closer to god.
Late stage atheism isn't pretty. They get so smug they can't even be bothered to think anymore.
what do you mean is this supposed to be hate?
Your "low hanging fruit episodes" are some of my favorites.
This fruit isn’t low-hanging, it was on the ground
It was half-buried
Nah, that stuff wasn't half buried, they found it in a mine shaft.
@@joebruemmer5154it’s what happens when there’s nothing to water the tree.
As a father, I can confirm that babies are anarchists who lack a moral code.
The fake anagrams really made it for me
What the atheism one?
I was so confused I thought he was using some bad word I had never heard of before or something.
Such an important video to make. We and our children face this type of bite size information everyday. We don't think of the quick answers you have presented. So Thank you!
Awesome video as always. God bless you and your family.
I just discovered you. I love your systematic explanations! I haven't found many other people who are able to do that so well. It is a virtue for sure.
Whenever someone brings up what’s “natural” to justify sin I just instantly pull out the fallen nature card. Yeah it may be natural but our nature doesn’t equal good
Here is a question.... Adam and Eve ate from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" according to the bible to get to that "fallen nature" of which card you just instantly play..... How did they know it was wrong to do it without having that knowledge of what good and evil was? Follow up, isn't it kind of a "dick move" to punish someone for doing something evil when they literally do not know what good and evil is? Especially when you look at how severe the punishment was, according to the bible.
@@skillcoiler God told them not to before hand
@@thehungarywaffleinc.7775 So? They did not know if it was good or evil to listen to or ignore god..... according to the bible. I am not making this up it is right there in Genesis.
@@skillcoiler Christian tradition is that they weren’t like literal babies in intelligence. They would’ve been more enlightened than us. I should add that refusing God wasn’t a question of right and wrong. It was a question of wether or not they wanted to be in union with God
@@thehungarywaffleinc.7775 Read the bible.... they didn't have a knowledge of good or evil until they ate from the tree... Meaning they would have no way of knowing if "being in union with god" as you say was a good or evil thing to be... So once again very messed up deity you have there according to YOUR BOOK on it... and that is literally the very first story about it....
You should do this more often, this is what i call Fun Apologetics!
"Debunks Irascible" is my new favorite anagram.
Most of the most intelligent people I’ve met in my life have been devout Christians.
Really? I have found the opposite to be true. And it’s actually a scientific fact that atheist are relatively more intellectual than a theist. Many studies have been preformed to come to this conclusion. So sounds like you need to get out more and gain more perspective.
@@dylanlawrence6272mind citing that source?
Sounds to me like a bunch of atheists judging people (as they typically do) without that source
@@LetThereBeLight-26 also you can look up the worlds top preforming scientist and intellectuals and you can see the difference between atheist and believers.. proof is all over the place. You can still ignore what any website tells you. I mean being a believer you ignore a lot that exist in this world so I don’t expect you to even take this and claim it as truth. It bashes believers so you’ll be offended and won’t accept it lol. Which is fine but doesn’t change the fact that exist.
The idea of denying the obvious is an atheist fundament.@@dylanlawrence6272
And Mary’s name would have been a form of Miriam. Elizabeth was not her sister. Elizabeth was likely more of a relative of her mother Anne
And according to the bible god impregnated her without her consent to get the human sacrifice he wanted later.... Weird book if you actually read it.
Imagine claiming to be smarter cos you lack belief and then dreaming these up💔💔💔
Nice video Trent.
Edit: The hypocrisy of those guys is phenomenal especially with the 6th 5:29
They don't see anything wrong in making kindergartners watch grown men in wigs dresses and making twerk in front of kids who should be learning maths, but read them your bible and then it's an issue 🤦💔
I think they lack belief alright, but they lack belief in critical thinking 😂
As an Atheist myself, please don't throw me into one pot with degenerates.
@@sketchartist1964I'd say what you observe is just basic human hypocracy.
Or, more simply put, why would it be "indoctrination" or "brainwashing" when a Catholic father explains and teaches his faith to his child but not when an atheist father does the same?
6:34 - I countered someone making this exact same argument with similar logic some time ago. He replied, "Well, not EVERYTHING animals do is something we should do". I responded, "So what you're saying is your argument from animal behavior only applies to things you agree with?" He couldn't respond.
bad reply. you don't understand why people use animals. people use animals to justify homosexuality because it shows that homosexuality occurs in nature and is therefore not unnatural. but the point of justifying it in the first place is because homosexuality is not an action or something directly harmful to anyone. this same reasoning can not be applied to immoral actions because humans and animals are not equal in intelligence, and therefore makes a human's drive to do these actions completely different from the instinct of animals who do that, to commit those actions. when those actions are committed, they require the direct intentional harm to another person.
Trent using a StoneToss meme was not on my bingo card for 2024
Also, about homophobia, I'm thinking of two recent videos you made: they can't have it both ways... They can't say, 'homosexuality isn't in the Bible' because it's 'actually' talking about ritual prostitution, pederasty, etc. etc. -- but then say, 'the Bible is full of homophobia.'
A Stonetoss comic on a Trent Horn video? Based.
That comic strip you showed with the "can animals consent" joke looks like it's from Stonetoss Comics, in case you'd like a reference.
Love your rebuttal videos. Would really love to see more of these.
Trent, these like and subscribe parts of the videos always get me laughing. XD
That first one really set the tone for the whole video💀💀
Love you Trent, recently bought Hard Sayings and I'm enjoying it very much.
I’m an atheist and I’ve watched lots of Trent’s debates. Enjoy his content - we don’t often agree but here I’ve got to - these memes are indeed embarrassingly bad!
Thank you for this video! I'm glad this was recommended to me! :D
I have met many religion hating atheists over the years who think Christianity is stupid and that it does no good. People like you are debunking the atheist's unsound and untrue thoughts of Christianity!
that one about the names made me want to head dive into an empty swimming pool.
As an Alex from the 90's, can confirm that nobody was actually named this before me. It's a tough life, but it's honest work.
Incest is also extremely popular in the animal kingdom. In the documentary "The Secret Life of Black Wolf", a wolf named Twenty-One tries to mate with his daughters multiple times (though is hilarious rebuked). I'm sure there have been far more documented cases of incestuous interest among animals than homosexuality.
Though in defense of the post on homosexuality, I could say that it shows how the bad the "it's unnatural" argument is and how it needs to be reframed.
Uh oh, one sentence in and we have a reference to low-hanging fruit. I feel the Kyle is strong with this one.
For the record, I stole the phrase from Trent. -Kyle
@@TheCounselofTrent I just had a half dozen snarky and mean things come to mind at once, and I can't pick between them any more than I could choose a favourite child (I constantly tell my mother I am her favourite child, just so she knows), so I will just say I appreciate the humility.
About names, fun fact: one of the names of that Saladin was "Yusuf", literally Arabic version of "Joseph".
Trent puts more thought into rebutting these memes than the people who made them put into the memes.
Didn’t expect to see a stonetoss comic in a Trent horn video lol.
I'm Orthodox, but I still love your content. Even if we don't agree on everything, we sure can see eye to eye when it comes to stuff like this!
0:04 That’s what Eve thought
03:02 Your response was very thoughtful. Similar vein to the "against nature" argument. Great video as always Trent.
It really wasn't. The whole thing was bunk.
It's like the first two people had never heard of translation or transliteration.
Thanks Trent, great video. God bless🙏
Ex-Christians in a nutshell: “mwy chuch dont allow my sinful wifestyle so i qwuit”
Great job! Entertaining and informative as usual!
I don't believe in God but I've been against the "atheism is just a lack of belief" line even before it was cool. I feel like it's used mostly as a way to deflect any possible criticism of your worldview, which is silly and ultimately pointless. It's like playing Street Fighter using a character that cannot be hit.
Thanks. Over time I noticed that many atheists are so focused on showing why we are wrong that they forget to focus on showing why they are right.
Not really, its just the most accurate description of that position.
This weird hard atheist definition is just an attempt to define people away form their position and shift the burden of proof.
I do not believe in god because i hold the view that we should not accept or believe claims without sufficient evidence.
All gods people have proposed to me are among those claims.
The reason i would not call myself an agnostic is because this term already has many other meanings and it would only be confusing and a poor word to describe my position.
Because i do not sit on the fence, the possibility that god might exist does not play any role in any decision making proces or moral consideration. I make all my dicisions on the basis that there are no gods, just like you do with any other mythical creatures.
Nor do i think evidence for both sides is about equal and therefor stay undecided for me the evidence is about 100 - 1 against god.
Both these things are also called agnostic and do not describe my views.
Besides what term would you give to my position?
@@aidanya1336 It sounds like you believe there is no god. You literally said "the evidence is about 100-1 against god." That's not an "I don't know." That's a "there is probably no god."
@@9502937 True, but i come to that position by rejecting the positive claim that there is a god. I do not affirm its opposite since i do not claim that there are no gods.
Think if it more like saying: You are wrong, rather than i am right.
So that puts me in the lack of believe in god group. That Trent calls agnostic.
@@aidanya1336 Trent offers three, and only three possible positions on the existence of god: (1) there is, or probably is, a god - Theist; (2) there is not, or probably is not, any god - Atheist; or (3) I don't know - Agnostic. You seem to be clearly in category 2, not 3. It doesn't particularly matter that the impetus of your belief is others' claims in favor of position 1. One could easily arrive at position 1 - Theism - with the impetus being a rejection of Atheism. Even if I arrive at belief in God by way of rejecting Atheists' belief that there is no God, I still now hold a belief that there is a God and am, therefore, a Theist. You claim not that you don't know whether there is a god, but that you believe there is not any god. Therefore, you are an Atheist with a positive belief in the absence, or probable absence, of any god.
Great Video! Stupid internet memes and Trent’s arguments are exactly at the same level 😅😅😅
the guy whi came up with the big bang theory, or at least an earlier version of it that they then developed, was a catholic priest. the father of genetics was a benedictine monk.
Yeah, but we won't hold that against the church.
:)
Thank you for this video! I'm glad this was recommended to me! :D
I have met many religion hating atheists over the years who think Christianity is stupid and that it does no good. People like you are debunking the atheist's unsound and untrue thoughts about Christianity! :D
My name is apparently much more complex to spell and pronounce than I'd thought 😂
“If God made the universe, then who made God?”
This one gets me every time!
It's not a bad argument, though. Christians always say that everything/the universe must have a creator, but when they are asked about that in relation to God, they pull the "no, that's different" card.
@@demoforcl It’s not a Christianity issue, but a fundamental question that is utterly unintelligible to the subject. That is why it’s objectively a bad question… Christians (and not only Christians) merely lack the perceptual impairment it takes to posit the question.
@@garymanz3403 True, it’s not just Christians. It’s a Christian channel/video, so I wrote that, but you’re right. However, it’s not unintelligible. You just don’t like that you can’t answer it. The question goes both ways, but since you can’t answer it, you just have to claim it’s stupid. It’s a cop out.
@@demoforcl I’d agree it’s a cop out if the question was relevant to the subject. However, it’s an objectively incoherent question in relation to Gods existence. And I’ll add, the only possible God!
I will grant you, it IS a very important question, in that, it exposes atheists conceptualization. Which is why their demand for “evidence” is often in tandem. Because in order to ask it at all, you have to naturalize the subject, making God “not God,” but just one more competitor within nature. Which of course only delays, perhaps infinitely (which is logically absurd), the fundamental question begged of why anything exists at all.
That's like saying: "If the baker baked the cake, who baked the baker?" The definition of God is being infinite and uncaused, so he needs no creator. If something's created, it's per definition not God, and if something's God, it's per definition not created.
He’s basically the modern day Thomas Aquinas.
These memes and Trents Rebuttals to them are like if Woody Allen fought a prime Mike Tyson lol 😂😅😂
Einstein believed in a form of the Anima Mundi if I remember right. The soul of the World.
Spain wasn't established even in 1479. The two kingdoms of Castile and Aragon were united in one Trastamara king (and queen), but they remained technically independent kingdoms in personal union with each other until the Bourbons came along, much much later. The entire Habsburg period fits between those two.
Disagree about homophobia…it definitely exists. The definition is: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people. Now, maybe Trent doesn’t like that definition as he loves to control definitions. I wonder what he would say about theophobia? Or religiophobia?
Also, when Trent asserts that homosexual people are not “natural” he is making an authoritative claim based on his interpretation of biblical theology. Appeals to nature are unconvincing to people who do not believe that nature is teleological or who find the notion of “essence” very problematic.
"Babies are amoral anarchists." Dang man, babies are metal as heck.
Bro is so based he is rebutting memes
Babies are anarchists, Hilarious.
Would have been great to juxtapose the meme at 5:30 with the ever popular "tHiNgS YoU dONt leArN in BiBlE scHoOl"
The first one is an example of the Tiffany problem where you can’t really use the name Tiffany in medieval fantasy because no one will believe that Tiffany was a medieval name. There’s also kinda a reverse of this which I call the Luke problem. No one will believe that you didn’t name you kid after Luke skywalker or princess Zelda instead of just using traditional names.
Yo stone toss made it onto Trent horn we are so back bros
0:25 it’s always the dumb laughing emoji background that has the most dumbest takes, this goes for any argument with this background
0:25 does bro not know about translating names to other languages🤦
good video man, as always !
Trent can mic drop with it on a stand.
Hi Trent I really like your videos and just recently for Christmas I bought your book Counterfeit Christs it’s a great read and I really enjoy your writing style
If God is real how come I was late for school today?
Checkmate theists 😎
God cannot interfere
He lets good things happen and bad things happened it's life he's not your jinni
If your ancestors were monkeys why are they still monkeys around
Prideful atheist🐵🦍🦍🦍🦍🐵🐵🐵🐵🐵🦍🦍🙉🙉🙉🐒🦧🦧🦧🦧🤓🏳️🌈🤡
@@kwakuandspinopython1346 it might be a joke
@@La_Fata_Ila_Ali childish comment you weren't being prepared
@@kwakuandspinopython1346 🤦♂️
"Sometimes the low hanging fruit jus tastes too good to resist' - That's why we're in this whole mess Trent! :D
4:32 there's a lot of funny things about the whole "lack of belief" definition. One of them is that virtually no professional philosopher (or really any academic context) holds the "lack of belief" definition, nor has that ever been the definition commonly used throughout history. In fact, the "lack of belief" definition was coined by Anthony Flew in the 1970s, a philosopher who coined it that way in order to make atheism "easier to sell." Flew eventually ended up believing in God near the end of his life.
The "lack of belief" says nothing about the world, and only something about a mental state. If you watch how lacktheists dialogue, you see a constant motte and bailey between "I merely lack belief" and their positivistic claims about God, theism and religion, which is why I think they're full of it.
What I like to tell them is: if you lack a belief, get out of the conversation. I know next to nothing about air conditioners, how they work, what units or brands are best for what purpose, the technical aspects of them, etc;. I also don't go to trade shows, tirelessly dialoguing with manufacturers about why their brand is unique or special, then ending the conversation with "I just lack a belief about your claims." Utter nonsense.
Furthermore, I don't think lacktheists are aware that literally any position can be framed as a "lack of belief", and it is clearly rhetorical technique to shift the burden of proof onto literally anybody else. What if I defined Christianity as "a lack of belief in any belief system that believes God is not a Trinity and Christ did not rise from the dead"? What if I defined theism as "a lack of belief in the statement 'there is no God'"? What if I defined Christian as "someone who lacks a belief in anything that isn't Christianity"? "Lack of belief" is a rhetorical technique used by cowardly interlocutors who wouldn't dare be caught dead having the burden of proof. I dismiss anyone who merely claims they "lack a belief in God" as an unserious person.
Also, "agnostic atheist" is a nonsense term as it fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between belief and knowledge (i.e. "justified true belief").
Well said.
Yes, except that it is perfectly reasonable to not believe in the existence of any deity while still believing in the possibility of the existence of a deity. It's pretty much the position anyone with an open mind should have to anything unproven.
@@tobinfolly901 Yes, I agree, agnostic is a position. It is not atheism and "agnostic atheism" is a nonsensical term.
@@newglof9558 agnosticism is a position, but not any position is worthy of taking part in debate. Those who tout agnosticism and "lack of belief" are not worthy of participation in a debate regarding the existence of deities.
@@newglof9558 "lack of belief" usually doesn't even accurately describe their mental state even. It's just a cop out and a front for their actual position that they wish to conceal in order to avoid accepting their burden of proof.
something i have realized now that trent made me (yes, forced me) to become catholic: Most of the views these atheists have on christianity are actually criticisms on Protestantism. For instance the "only one book" argument, because of how strong protestantism is in USA. Some of them are actually SOMEWHAT "valid" in their foundation, but thats not christianity, or religion, its criticizing a specific view on religion
0:40 "half this was probably written in the 1400s" excuse me sir, are you aware of the entire plot of the middle ages?
these people are known to be history deniers so it does not really surprise me
And the original manuscripts were magically aged to look like 2000 years old, even with the most accurate modern measurements, and then hidden somewhere in the Middle East, of course without leaving any trace.
Thank you...that was impressive!
The people who insist that Atheism is just a "lack of belief" should really read Dr Filipe Leon's "200 (or so) Reasons for Atheism", and then decide if they are truly still simply not convinced, or are they now convinced one way or the other. Then call yourself a Theist, Agnostic, or Atheist, accordingly. But don't try to have your cake and eat it too -_-
Yeah I read most of them but "probabilistic argument" was the funniest. Also saying matter is metaphysical necessatiy doesnt prove anything. And also saying it is more plausable then theistic view without showing why and alternatives doesnt show anything. Most of them was bad argument or not an argument.
It's actually simpler since there isn't a single atheist philosopher who defines atheism as "lacktheism".
@@uguroz3745 And so I take it that you admit to being a Theist, meaning "one who affirms that there is a God", and not just a Theist*, meaning, "one who lacks belief in the belief that there are no gods"? Like, imagine that all the Theists were like "All theism is is a lack of disbelief in a God!" - that would be very frustrating haha!
@@utopiabuster That is also true! I own a copy of Graham Oppy's "Atheism and Agnosticism" that I often point the Lack-Theists towards.
Why anyone call themselves a "theist"?
A neopagan, a deist, a Christian and a Hindu have so little in common, we don't even really team up when talking to atheists.
The only reason atheists have any ability to team up, is because the label is actually a symbol for one of several very distinct cultural movements, depending on the time and place in question. There is no such common cause among the religious.
6:11 Man that debate with Destiny really affected Trent. I mean, if my opponent tries to morally justify bestiality I would be shocked too.
I need to see this debate